PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Feb 27, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act - Amends the Clayton Act to make it unlawful for a person, in connection with the sale of a drug product, to be a party to any agreement resolving or settling a patent infringement claim in which: (1) an abbreviated new drug (generic) application filer receives anything of value; and (2) such filer agrees not to research, develop, manufacture, market, or sell the generic product for any period. Excludes a resolution or settlement that includes no more than the right to market the generic product prior to the expiration of the patent.
Amends the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 to set forth additional filing requirements related to agreements between a brand name drug company and a generic drug applicant. Requires the Chief Executive Officer or the company official responsible for negotiating any agreement to file a certification that materials filed with respect to such agreements: (1) are complete, final, and exclusive; (2) include any ancillary agreements that are contingent upon, provide a contingent condition for, or are otherwise related to, the agreement; and (3) include written descriptions of any relevant oral agreements, representations, commitments, or promises between the parties that have not been reduced to writing.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide that forfeiture of the 180-day exclusivity period for the marketing of a generic drug occurs if there is a final decision of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or the court that an agreement has violated this Act.
Requires the FTC to study the prevalence of anticompetitive agreements in the pharmaceutical industry and their impact. Requires the Attorney General or FTC to consider whether any additional enforcement action is necessary.
Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Kohl, Herb [D-WI] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights. Hearings held.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 59.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Approved for reporting without amendment favorably.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S679-680)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S679)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.316 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.316 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.316 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.316 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.